Need additional opinions on CPUs

[thelastdonut]

So I've been using an AMD build for a few years now with small changes. Its actually been performing pretty well for gaming, browsing, screen captures/multi-threaded video processing, etc, but lately I've been feeling the upgrade itch. Part of me wants to purchase an Intel based processor for first hand experience (and yes I realize the Phenom is from back in '09 so that affects differences as well), the other part is fine sticking with AMD since I've experienced no problems on stock speeds and the price is usually better.

Now, for CPUs I'm looking at possibly the i5-4460 (Tom's recommendation), i5-4690k (motherboard/processor bundle), FX-8320 (bundle), or any additional suggestions. I'm not necessarily looking for 60+ FPS on games, though the more the better, just overall responsiveness (browser video playback, opening apps, games, etc). Unless I've missed something, the general consensus has been Intel shines in the gaming department while AMD shines when it comes to multithreaded applications right, price vs performance? Do any of you have recommendations for that middle ground? Yes things are currently fine overall but I can't help but wonder what could be improved when a random application doesn't respond instantly while the system isn't under full load.

Also, I've got no desire to tinker with overclocking again until I build a second experimental PC.

Motherboard: Gigabyte GA-990FXA-UD3 AM3+
CPU: Phenom II x4 955 Black @ 3.2GHz
GPU: Asus GTX 760 (4GB VRAM)
GPU Cooler: Coolermaster Hyper 212 Plus
PSU: Corsair 750HX
Windows 7 on SSD
8GB G Skill Ram
Coolermaster HAF 922 Tower

*I unchecked the request solutions forum option since this seems more like a discussion based question based on knowledge.

 

[popatim]

I run AMD because I edit & render videos which os one of the tasks where these processors can really shine. But now that Intel has i7's out in 6+ cores... even I am jumping ship.

For gaming, unless you are on a budget restriction, you are much better off going an Intel route. Most games use 4 cores and less and probably will for a long time to come, despite the new consoles.

 

[XxskaterjerkxX]

If you can go for the 4690k with a z97 it be a good buy since the next chips *broadwell* will be able to utilize the z97 chips allowing you to upgrade in the future. If not try going for one of amd's new 8 cores that use less TDP they use about 95 Watts. or if you want to go the route wiht the i5-4690k mobo combo you can if its a z97 but anything lower and you will have to upgrad both Mobo and processor in the future for the broadwell and skylake CPU's.

 

[yumri]

I suggest getting a AMD FX-8320 and OCing it to about 4.3GHz~4.5GHz whatever is most stable in that range with your cooling solution. Or the Intel for slightly faster renders but no increase to gaming, browsering, and only a minor increase to streaming. Also with the Intel i5-4660 will be a motherboard change to one of these: B85, C224, C226, H81, H87, H97, Q87, Z87 or Z97 some of which will require a BIOS update to support the CPU. The AMD CPU will most likely require a BIOS update for the newer CPU to be supported also but you can keep the same motherboard as before.

Here is what i think about the CPU examples in your topic message.

For video processing that is ussualy a GPU bound task not a CPU bound one so whatever you have will be good and whatever you upgrade to will be good too. Now for gaming the i5-4460 will be good for that as more might get you 0 fps to 2 fps more. For screen cpatures it really depends on what screen capture program you use but most of them are CPU constrained so going with a Intel one will be good just because it has a higher IPC and can maintain it for longer with lower temps during doing it at max which will help you if you also record during your screen captures. For browsing well my ARMv6 does that excellently and that is used mainly in phones so whatever you get will do that one very well.

For price / preformance AMD saddly takes the cake as i truely love Intel CPUs ... at that you will ned at least a FX-8320 and OC it a bit at least to the clock speed of the FX-8350 if not higher but AMD CPUs run hot thus why i like Intel CPUs as i just like cooler CPU temps. But if you have a good cooling setup and do not mind higher CPU temps under normal load AMD's FX-8320 is the way to go ... now if it is a workstation for a job the Intel i7-5960X can save a ton of time on rendering and rerendering once errors are found in the orginal render but that is assuming you would be making money on what you do enough to justify the cost which to most ppl is NOT the case.

 

[synphul]

The i5 4690k does cost a bit more, but it's a better performing processor in almost every aspect than the amd. Even in heavily threaded tasks, the 4c/4t i5 isn't far behind the 8c/8t vishera. Multiple threads sound really great, multi tasking being the advantage. Due to the raw speed of the core for core performance of the intel, it's pretty balanced. Only in rare scenarios will the cheaper amd outperform it. Most every task on the pc makes use of 4 cores or under.

Really depends on your budget. The vishera 8core stuff is already 2yrs old and amd's next plan for an update isn't until around the beginning of 2016 I believe. The z97 intel platform is relatively new and has an upgrade path already mapped out. Double the thread count doesn't equal double the speed or performance. Even if the i5 only processes half the threads as the vishera, it processes each thread faster - so it would process the first 4 threads and be on to the next 4 threads by the time the vishera completed it's first 8. Single core performance isn't just about situations involving 1 core operations, it extends throughout the entire performance range.

Just my opinion on the matter - I'm on a budget when it comes to upgrading just as much if not more than many others. I couldn't even begin to justify a $300 graphics card. That being said, I use my pc a lot. By going with the i5, I spent maybe $60-70 more for the intel cpu/mobo than I would have for the amd. My current rate of upgrades says I probably won't upgrade again for at least 2yrs (realistically probably longer). Broken down by year, it's not worth it to me to have a slower pc for the next 2yrs to save less than $40 a year. At the end of a year I doubt I'll even notice a $40 budget difference. It's not like buying a box of cereal, settling for the cheap stuff because I'll just be getting another box in a week and I can get something else. It's something I'll be stuck dealing with for awhile. Pretty much the same outlook I have on other major/electronic purchases. Usually a t.v. stays a household item for awhile. A year from the time you buy it, you won't remember paying $50 more for it. But you will still be griping about the sucky remote or annoyed by the less than stellar picture. Tv's just aren't something people typically go out and grab a new one every 6mo.

 

[camohanna]

The i5 4690k does cost a bit more, but it's a better performing processor in almost every aspect than the amd. Even in heavily threaded tasks, the 4c/4t i5 isn't far behind the 8c/8t vishera. Multiple threads sound really great, multi tasking being the advantage. Due to the raw speed of the core for core performance of the intel, it's pretty balanced. Only in rare scenarios will the cheaper amd outperform it. Most every task on the pc makes use of 4 cores or under.

Really depends on your budget. The vishera 8core stuff is already 2yrs old and amd's next plan for an update isn't until around the beginning of 2016 I believe. The z97 intel platform is relatively new and has an upgrade path already mapped out. Double the thread count doesn't equal double the speed or performance. Even if the i5 only processes half the threads as the vishera, it processes each thread faster - so it would process the first 4 threads and be on to the next 4 threads by the time the vishera completed it's first 8. Single core performance isn't just about situations involving 1 core operations, it extends throughout the entire performance range.

Just my opinion on the matter - I'm on a budget when it comes to upgrading just as much if not more than many others. I couldn't even begin to justify a $300 graphics card. That being said, I use my pc a lot. By going with the i5, I spent maybe $60-70 more for the intel cpu/mobo than I would have for the amd. My current rate of upgrades says I probably won't upgrade again for at least 2yrs (realistically probably longer). Broken down by year, it's not worth it to me to have a slower pc for the next 2yrs to save less than $40 a year. At the end of a year I doubt I'll even notice a $40 budget difference. It's not like buying a box of cereal, settling for the cheap stuff because I'll just be getting another box in a week and I can get something else. It's something I'll be stuck dealing with for awhile. Pretty much the same outlook I have on other major/electronic purchases. Usually a t.v. stays a household item for awhile. A year from the time you buy it, you won't remember paying $50 more for it. But you will still be griping about the sucky remote or annoyed by the less than stellar picture. Tv's just aren't something people typically go out and grab a new one every 6mo.

Very good way to put it.

At the moment intel is the best choice for performance, as it has better single threaded performance.

 

[thelastdonut]

Thanks for all the feedback.

I definitely understand what you are saying Synphul but the price aspect is more of a personal preference of mine. Even though I've already paid off the cost, it still annoys me that I could have saved $100 or so during my first build for the same performance. I'll definitely need to look more at direct comparisons between an 8320/8350 and an i5-4690k ($150 AMD CPU vs $300 Z97 mobo/CPU bundle + new future upgrade path). It does annoy me a little how most AMD recommendations I see immediately mention overclocking. I get that overclocking is always a possibility, but it doesn't always have to be mentioned in the same breath. If going with Intel means I'll get comparable or better results at a lower clock speed, lower temps, and its all prior to overclocking, I may have to go that route until the next round of AMDs are reviewed.

Also, its may seem weird that I'm not planning to overclock any time soon but am looking at the 4690K, but its just due to the pricing. Theres an i5-4590 that is about $40 cheaper but I'll likely eat the difference buying a new motherboard separately. If I go that route, I may as well grab the 4690K now and possibly use it in a second build.

 

[XxskaterjerkxX]

Good luck and its all up to you now the 300$ combo or the 150$ just remember that the 300$ unlocks new upgrading path's and for all we can know the broadwells could be good or bad and it wouldn't hurt to be able to have the path available if so they are good

 

[synphul]

A lot of it for me too has been personal experience. While I haven't had a ton of experience with amd, the ones I've had haven't been great. I'm not trying to convince anyone that amd sucks and intel is the best. Intel does perform a bit better currently, even though amd is more or less 'budget' or second tier doesn't make it 'crap'. Neither upper end modern cpu's are garbage.

Someone made a comment to the effect of amd and intel being like two different boxes, amd made of cardboard and intel made of wood. Serving the same functions, appear the same until you step on them and put them under pressure. One of the best analogies that represents at least my experience. Around the time I had a p166 a family member had the k2-350. Theoretically the amd should have been faster, it just felt..sluggish. When my old boss got a brand new pc a number of years ago, he had the athlon xp 3200+ and I had a p4 2.8c at home. They should have been fairly equal and yet it just felt bogged down. He also had more ram than I did at the time. It reminds me of the old celeron performance compared to a pentium, like you can't quite put your finger on it but it gives the sensation it's struggling. Like I said, just been my personal experience with them. Any time I've been on a pc that felt sluggish I've popped open the system specs to see what the deal was if it was low on ram or what and every time it's been an amd. I'm sure there are better performing amd's out there but I've just avoided them personally. It's not fair to make assumptions based on a handful of experiences, but when all your experiences have been poor regardless of timeframe or architecture you can't help it.